Response To Readings for 4 Feb 08

This post will cover the following assigned reading for this week (2/4):

“A Brief History of Rhetoric and Composition” by Reynolds, Bizzell, and Herzberg

Reynolds et al. offer a quick review of how rhetoric has undergone many changes throughout history as well as a good explanation of how composition studies came about at Harvard and beyond.

“Introduction” by Brereton

This is another historical walk through the origins of composition and the undoing of rhetoric in formal study. Brereton echoes much of the material in Reynold et al’s work as it re-tells the story of the founding of composition at Harvard in the late 19th century. Brereton also covers the concept of the German model for universities and the ways in which university education grew rapidly through the model, expansion of knowledge, increase of students, and the visionaries who fought so hard for higher education.

“An Answer to the Cry for More English” by Hill

Hill attempts to show how Harvard is doing more for students in terms of English instruction than critics would allow. His purpose is also to show that a large part of the blame for students’ inability to write must rest at the front doors of lower-level educational institutions. This article also made some of the same references to Harvard’s history of composition that were included in the other pieces. Hill, however, details the inadequacies of past students who could write about literature but not understand the mechanics of their native language. He also discusses the apathy of many teachers who did not want to deal with change.

“Where Did Composition Studies Come From?” by Nystrand, Greene, and Wiemelt

A very interesting “intellectual history” (267) of not only how composition studies came into being after the literary crisis of the 1970s, but also how the various minds behind formalism, structuralism and dialogism believed meaning developed in relation to writing and speaking. In addition, Nystrand et al detail the progression of composition studies as it paralleled the changes in language and literary studies.



My Reflections on the Readings

First, I’d like to say that this is the first blog I have ever done, so I hope I am following whatever “blog etiquette” exists out there. I’ll also try not to be too dry. (Call me old-fashioned or maybe too engrained in past “military security” training, but I am not very comfortable putting myself out on the public domain.) Anyway, even old dogs can learn new tricks, so here goes…

I have always felt that rhetoric and composition programs were on a lower pecking order somehow than literary studies at most universities, and most of this week’s readings reinforced my belief. From talking with my peers in the graduate program, I have to wonder if students today understand the importance of rhetoric in their own writing or in the writing development of others. (Now I really do sound old – these kids today…!) I know when I speak to my students in business writing about concerns like rhetorical purpose and audience, they look at me like I’m speaking a foreign language. Most of them just want to know what I want so they can get an “A.”

In Reynolds et al’s piece, I found Janet Emig’s theory of “composing” versus “writing” to be very interesting. I can see how the change in terms might convey another meaning to writers because to me composing connotes building something from nothing while writing often signifies a set of hard-and-fast rules to follow. Using the term composing might be a way for us to encourage students to think more creatively about their work. It also might help me lighten up, as I can sometimes fall into the prescriptive trap when grading.

From Brereton, I learned that, prior to 1900, higher levels of education were really nothing more than charm schools for the elite. Much of the criticism about Harvard’s composition program in the late 19th century sounds like what we hear today – that it does not make a significant change to student writing, and that it takes up too much of the instructor’s time. I did find Brereton‘s article to be interesting, although he seems to tack on feminist and African-American rhetoric and writing as almost an afterthought. I’m not really sure why he addressed it so briefly. Overall, it was rather distressing to me that the area in which I am so interested – rhetoric and language analysis – was so undervalued as higher education developed, and that this type of thinking still prevails today. It’s a shame that men like Hill, who were supposed to be defending the practice of rhetorical studies and composition, decided to argue from a position of art versus a more research-based discipline. Perhaps composition should have separated from the English department just as public speaking did. Brereton’s article did leave me with a few questions: 1) If composition was not taught in the colleges prior to the 1860s, how did students do so well with their courses? 2) Is there something we can learn from that period to improve our method? 3) How can we work with the students to improve their rhetorical skills?

What strikes me the most about Hill’s piece is the emphasis that was once again consistently placed on literary studies versus rhetoric and composition studies. The exams the students had to take, for example, all centered on great literary works even in the process of stating the desire to evaluate organizational and mechanical skills. It was not until late in the piece that I saw references to other forms of education in English, such as debate and instruction in the use of rhetorical canons like invention and arrangement. By Hill’s own assertion, these types of programs motivated and inspired students to achieve more (i.e. the competitive students who wanted to win places in the “Commencement Parts”) (54). Unfortunately, only a special few appeared to have benefited from the advanced training.

While initially imposing to me for its length, Nystrand et al’s piece is actually my favorite of the readings for this week. The article presented the various theories in a clear and easy-to-read manner, and I enjoyed the analogies, such as looking at the evolution of composition studies as a “fundamental climate change” (273). The mini-summaries at the end of each sub-section were a nice touch for the flow of the article and my retention of the material, too. I only wish I had read this piece (and had the table that the authors provide) at the beginning of my M.A. education because it really helped resolve some of my misperceptions about the differences between theories, such as the key ideas of constructivism and social constructionism. This piece also resonated with me because it discusses several of the premises behind the theory which is an essential part of my M.A. thesis. (I am using James Paul Gee’s theory of situated meaning as the methodology for my discourse analysis of pharmaceutical advertising.)

Finally, as Nystrand et al mentioned, we could benefit by expanding our definition of what a “text” or a discourse can look like or contain. Many researchers, for example, have been looking at product labeling, billboards, etc., as a corpus for a social discourse and have made some interesting assertions about the messages we derive from these forms of communication.